Kunhammed C.P. v. Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. (and others)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.13091 OF 2020(J)** ## **PETITIONER:** **KUNHAMMED C.P, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. KUNHALI, SENIOR PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR (DISMISSED) REGIONAL OFFICE, THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., DYE HOUSE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 020 (PUTHENPURAYIL, KAYATHARA ROAD, THALASSERY VILLAGE AND TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101.** **BY ADVS. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI SRI.M.M.VINOD SMT.M.SUSEELA SMT. KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THILLERY ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **2 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THILLERY ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.** **3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THILLERY ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.** **4 THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, ADVOCATE P. V. ABHAYANATH, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THILLERY ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 13091/20 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner impugns Ext.P10 order issued by the Managing Director of the 1st respondent-Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd on various grounds, but primarily that it has been issued by an incompetent authority and that it is a nonspeaking order. 2. The petitioner says that, while he was working in the Corporation, he was chargesheeted and proceeded against departmentally, which finally led to a punishment of dismissal being slapped against him; that he, therefore, preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation, who is the competent Appellate Authority; and when it was not considered, he had approached this Court and obtained Ext.P9 judgment, whereby the Chairman of the Corporation was directed to consider and pass orders on the appeal. WPC 13091/20 3 3. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the specific directions in Ext.P9 judgment, Ext.P10 order has been issued not by the Chairman, but by the Managing Director of the Corporation; and that too, without citing any reason as to why Ext.P7 appeal had been dismissed. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P10 be set aside and the Corporation be directed to reinstate him in service forthwith. 4. In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel – Smt.Keerthi B. Chandran, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents – Sri.Jayamohan, submitted that Ext.P10 has been issued based on a decision taken by the Appellate Authority, which met on 31.10.2019. He submitted that said Authority had examined all the relevant aspects and had found that 11 of the 14 charges were proved against the petitioner, as per the enquiry reports and WPC 13091/20 4 therefore, that he does not deserve any leniency. He, therefore, contended that Ext.P10 is irreproachable and prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 5. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of Sri.Jayamohan because, as is clear from Ext.P9 judgment, Ext.P7 appeal was directed to be disposed of by the Chairman of the Corporation in accordance with law but the impugned order has been issued by the Managing Director. 6. That apart, when one examines Ext.P7 appeal, the petitioner has challenged the findings in the enquiry report in detail, but Ext.P10 order rejects it merely by saying that 11 of the 14 charges have been found proved in enquiry. This is not the manner in which a statutory appeal could have been disposed of by the competent Authority and this is exacerbated because Ext.P10 has been issued by WPC 13091/20 5 an Authority which is different from the one who was directed to consider Ext.P7 by this Court through Ext.P9 judgment. 7. Further, it is now well-settled, without requirement for restatement, that every order will have to be supported by the contents thereof and not by the pleadings to be made when litigations are launched against it (see for support **Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner** [1978(1) SCC 405]. 8. Perhaps discerning my mind as afore, Sri.Jayamohan submitted that if this Court is so inclined, the Chairman of the Corporation is willing to consider Ext.P7 appeal and issue an appropriate order thereon, without any further delay. 9. Since I cannot find favour with Ext.P10 for the above reasons, I deem it appropriate that the Chairman of the Corporation be directed to reconsider the WPC 13091/20 6 matter and issue a fresh order in terms of Ext.P9 judgment. In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P10; with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent-Chairman of the Corporation to reconsider Ext.P7 appeal of the petitioner, after affording him an opportunity of being heard – either physically or through video conferencing – thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR ## **JUDGE** WPC 13091/20 7 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE| |---|---| ||DATED 13.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPLY| ||DATED 21.1.2017 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT| ||DATED 6.9.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||01.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S OBJECTION| ||DATED 7.11.2018.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER| ||NO.KSHDC/G2/PF/361/2019-20 DATED| ||17.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED| ||1.8.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| ||BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO BE| ||TRANSMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED| ||1.8.2019 SUBMITTED ALONG WITH| ||EXHIBIT P7 APPEAL.| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||20.11.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.31305/2019| ||OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER| ||NO.KSHDC/G2/PF/1232/2019 DATED| ||28.02.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT| ||WITH ENVELOP.| WPC 13091/20 8 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 31.10.2019 TO THE EXTENT THAT PERTAINS TO THE THE PETITIONER